If this is a question you haven’t given much thought to lately, you may be taking a standard one-size-fits-all approach in your persuasive writing when a variety of methods is called for.

First, some definitions.

Classical rhetoric is a body of rules and principles governing the persuasive use of language, as devised by the ancient Greek philosophers (primarily Aristotle). Sometimes called the "antagonistic" or "oppositional" method, this style of argumentation involves two parties presenting opposing arguments to a third, theoretically neutral party.

Both our judicial system (composed of prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and judge or jury) and our political system (composed of Republican candidate, Democratic candidate, and electorate) are based on this win/lose model.

In contrast, Rogerian persuasion, sometimes called the "non-antagonistic" or nonoppositional" method, is a rhetorical strategy that seeks not to highlight differences but to find common ground.

Based on the thinking of the American humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers, this style of argumentation involves only two parties. The goal is not for one party to vanquish a second party (in the judgment of a third party), but for one party to try to change the thinking of a second party.

Rogerian persuasion requires the writer to give a fair and accurate statement of the other party’s ideas and feelings before presenting the opposing viewpoint. The rhetorical strategy is that the writer’s empathy and fair-minded tone will lower the other party’s resistance to new thinking.

To contrast the two methods, consider two current events: In the Washington budget negotiations, the predominant rhetorical style seems to be classical; in the Dayton peace talks, the predominate style was presumably Rogerian.

In classical rhetoric, two opposing parties address a third party without trying to convince the other; in Rogerian persuasion, two opposing parties acknowledge each other’s viewpoint even as they try to convince the other. The objective of classical rhetoric, with its emphasis on conflict, is victory; the objective of Rogerian persuasion, with its emphasis on empathy, is understanding and problem-solving.

So, what are the practical implications of classical rhetoric vs. Rogerian persuasion for the business writer? Which method offers more promise for winning arguments, making decisions or resolving conflicts?

Well, it depends on the situation. Let’s say you are a branch manager in a firm with a relatively centralized power structure. One of the other branch managers has presented an argument to your CEO advocating more autonomy and local leadership. You see this as a power grab, and you want to argue against the proposed changes.

In this situation, you might devise an argument using classical rhetoric and a standard five-part format: opening, background, presentation of your argument, refutation of opposing argument, and closing restatement of your argument.

On the other hand, if your goal is not to defeat your opponent’s initiative but to change your opponent’s mind, you might present an argument (not to your CEO but to your opponent) using Rogerian persuasion and this format: opening, background, fair and accurate statement of opposing position, validation of opposing position in certain contexts, presentation of your position, and closing appeal to mutual interests.

This less aggressive strategy offers some obvious benefits. You might change your opponent’s mind. Your opponent might change your mind. More important, if your opponent had used Rogerian persuasion on you to enlist your support in the first place, a classical conflict might have been avoided.

We live in a divided country, where consensus between warring parties seems impossible, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, where civil discourse among those with differing viewpoints seems like a long lost art. And the folks in the middle? What happened to them? Have they become the silent minority?

History has much to teach us about rhetoric, the artful use of language for persuasion. (Isn’t it interesting how certain words like rhetoric take on contrary meanings? But perhaps those shifts are academic.) Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and other ancient rhetoricians taught an oppositional mode of argumentation, one that is in full force today. It involves two opponents attempting to persuade not one another but a third entity, such as a jury or an electorate. Oppositional argumentation, with its sharply delineated viewpoints, produces winners and losers.

The formulation of an alternative approach began in 1951, when American psychologist Carl Rogers published a paper titled "Communication: Its Blocking and its Facilitation." In that paper Rogers proposes a non-antagonistic approach based not on confrontation but on empathy and affirmation. Rather than two opponents seeking to win over a third party, Rogerian persuasion involves two parties talking directly to one another and seeking to find common ground and compromise in a win-win scenario. Rogers’ method was simple: "Each person can speak up for himself only after he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker, and to that speaker’s satisfaction."

You can’t paraphrase and affirm, the theory goes, unless you listen. And attentive listening is more apt to produce mutually beneficial results than classical or oppositional argumentation.

How do these two modes of argumentation apply to the workplace?

When you need to state choices clearly, debate issues rigorously, and define outcomes precisely, classical rhetoric is probably your better option. But when you want to understand and appreciate your opponent’s perspective, reduce conflict, promote team spirit, and encourage creative thinking, risk-taking, and problem-solving, Rogerian persuasion is probably your better bet.

It’s good to have both approaches, but I believe we sometimes resort unthinkingly to oppositional argumentation when Rogerian persuasion would better serve our needs – as when problems are complex, no easy solutions are available, and fresh thinking is needed. As when a once-great country finds itself in decline, or a still-great country commits itself to continued greatness.

Imagine. A country in which people tried to see the validity of opposing points of view, rather than worked to accentuate differences and distort opposing arguments. Imagine a country in which people actually listened to one another.

If only we could have the world John Lennon and Louis Armstrong imagined, a world that "lives as one," with "trees of green, red roses, too. . . skies of blue and clouds of white."

The question isn’t whether such a world is realistic. The question is whether you can imagine it.